I read Eberts first review of thefilm wheee he absolutely pummels the plot, direction and casting only to find that his original review has been replaced with something a little more cocksucky and in synch with what almost every other critic has said. I'll judge it when I see it.

So am I to infer that Leo is mad and it's all in his head - or he goes mad there?

Does anyone remember pre-Internet where you could go see a film without being massively put off by spoiler rants, or not feel cheated after you had seen something completely generic?

That said, I went to see a movie recently without catching any reviews or talkback beforehand - The Wolfman - which I ended up hating of my own accord. What an exhilerating experience.

Seriously, I'm at the point now where I can think of very few films I have seen that I would call "original". The last thing I saw I would categorise as unique was "A Scanner Darkly", which was 3 years ago, I think.

Mr John wrote:So am I to infer that Leo is mad and it's all in his head - or he goes mad there?

Does anyone remember pre-Internet where you could go see a film without being massively put off by spoiler rants, or not feel cheated after you had seen something completely generic?

That said, I went to see a movie recently without catching any reviews or talkback beforehand - The Wolfman - which I ended up hating of my own accord. What an exhilerating experience.

Seriously, I'm at the point now where I can think of very few films I have seen that I would call "original". The last thing I saw I would categorise as unique was "A Scanner Darkly", which was 3 years ago, I think.

Discuss.

A Scanner Darkly was not original. See my previous 'Jet Grind Radio' jibbe which Busta felt was hilarious.

I had opinions on films and felt cheated by lousy films a lot before I used the internet. I worked at a video store when I was 10 and saw almost every film they had. Even the porn they rented from under the counter. This kind of experience can have an effect on one's patience with regards to shite cinema. no one really cares if a film is original or not, this is of little importance. Quality of the writing and acting whilst taking care not to regurgetate so called winning and easy to identify formulas which is the issue. I mean if they made Die Hard again exactly the same frame by frame right now whilst the original had not existed, it would have few fans.

My favorite performance by him is when he played the retard brother in the movie Gilbert Grape. This was in 93.

Having said that, I like most of his stuff.

Yes, perhaps I should have said he had a prodigious start, with that role and Romeo & Juliet, which he also excels in. Some of his late 90s/early noughties (I hate that word) role choices scream "Leo gotta eat" to me though.

(lingus) wrote:so what if he took roles for the money. if it's for the greater good to him.
you wouldn't?

don't lie

I don't recall that being a point I raised. I'm perfectly aware that actors take well paid roles and don't care. What I said was, I liked him in two films when he was very young and recent films, his choices seem geared towards interesting roles and movies.